Pauls statements against women.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by adjensen

 

Contradictions between Paul and Jesus HAVE been provided in the past.
What happens is that people asking to see the contradictions just glaze over the evidence and say "what contradictions"?

They were in my bookmarks some time ago to remind me of the perils of believing a book to be an infallible source of truth, rather than the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truths which Jesus teaches.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Historical and covenant context has also been failed to be followed in the past.

Over their heads NuT. They have no idea what that really means.

reply to post by adjensen

Every one that I have been shown has been taken out of context, is inaccurate, or represents a difference of no consequence.

This is exactly what I meant when I said you'd glaze over it and say "what contradictions?"

Just go over Pauls statements on the law.
Why is it that other christians find fault with it?

Wait let me guess... you will tell me something on the lines of "they are wrong and we are right?"

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by adjensen

 

Every one that I have been shown has been taken out of context, is inaccurate, or represents a difference of no consequence.

This is exactly what I meant when I said you'd glaze over it and say "what contradictions?"

Just go over Pauls statements on the law.
Why is it that other christians find fault with it?

You're going to have to be more specific - I'm not going to pore over thirteen books in an attempt to figure out what you're citing.

I didn't "glaze over" anything -- you didn't provide any content to critique.

reply to post by adjensen

I didn't "glaze over" anything -- you didn't provide any content to critique.

Exhibit A : Paul calling the law a curse :

All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."
-Paul in Galaians 3:10

So the law is a curse, according to Paul. Got that down? Ok.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Exhibit B : Paul relying on the authority of the law to get women to shut up in churches.

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
- Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:34


So if all who rely on observing the law are under a curse...then just why does Paul refer to the law in 1 Corinthians 14:34 . Is he under a curse as well....as he states in Galaians 3:10?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


I could now simply ask...

"Why is Paul referring to the law (1 Corinthians 14:34) when he declares that all who rely on observing the law are under a curse (Galaians 3:10 )?"

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Historical and covenant context has also been failed to be followed in the past.

Over their heads NuT. They have no idea what that really means.

They can Google "Biblical Hermeneutics" and reference step/rule #1.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


"For it is written" means Paul is quoting the OT.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Well, that would be an example of Paul contradicting himself, not Christ, but as I pointed out earlier, there are bits of Paul that appear to be reflective of his time, rather than himself. There is speculation that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 are later additions to the text (primarily because of the conflict regarding the behaviour of women, as well as the reference to the Law) but I don't know that I would agree with that.

The letters to the Corinthians are letters of rebuke -- this was a church in turmoil, due to internal conflict, created by the members and leaders of the church. Some of the text appears to try and establish that there is a natural hierarchy that needs to be followed (so a "law" apart from the Jewish Law,) see 1 Corinthians 11 and this may be a reference to that, rather than Jewish tradition, though even if it was tradition, Paul is not the source of it, so I'm not sure how HE can be viewed as a curse.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

"For it is written" means Paul is quoting the OT.

Paul is also quoting the OT ....when he speaks of the law in 1 Corinthians 14:34.

reply to post by adjensen

Well, that would be an example of Paul contradicting himself, not Christ, but as I pointed out earlier, there are bits of Paul that appear to be reflective of his time, rather than himself.

EXACTLY.
Paul contradicts himself.

And its not about Pauls "time".... because Jesus, who lived before Paul, never contradicted himself .
Jesus was consistent whenever he referred to the "law" unlike Paul.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by adjensen

 

Well, that would be an example of Paul contradicting himself, not Christ, but as I pointed out earlier, there are bits of Paul that appear to be reflective of his time, rather than himself.

EXACTLY.
Paul contradicts himself.

And its not about Pauls "time".... because Jesus, who lived before Paul, never contradicted himself .
Jesus was consistent whenever he referred to the "law" unlike Paul.

But that wasn't what you were asked to produce, examples of Paul contradicting Christ, and I demonstrated that it isn't evidence of Paul contradicting himself, since:

1) The Corinthians were a Gentile, Greek church
2) Citing the Jewish Law to quell some members of that church wouldn't make sense, as they were NEVER under the Law, may not even have known what it was

While there were likely Jewish members of the church at Corinth, it isn't stated that this refers to them, so we must conclude that something else is going on.

reply to post by adjensen

But that wasn't what you were asked to produce, examples of Paul contradicting Christ, and I demonstrated that it isn't evidence of Paul contradicting himself, since:

I did produce examples of Paul contradicting Jesus.
To which you responded " that would be an example of Paul contradicting himself, not Christ"

Like I said earlier, you look at clear evidence of Pauls contradictions and say "what contradictions?"


--------------------------------------

I will ask you again....."Why is Paul referring to the law (1 Corinthians 14:34) when he declares that all who rely on observing the law are under a curse (Galaians 3:10 )?"

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by adjensen

 

Well, that would be an example of Paul contradicting himself, not Christ, but as I pointed out earlier, there are bits of Paul that appear to be reflective of his time, rather than himself.

EXACTLY.
Paul contradicts himself.

And its not about Pauls "time".... because Jesus, who lived before Paul, never contradicted himself .
Jesus was consistent whenever he referred to the "law" unlike Paul.

Romans 15:4

For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning...

Referencing the law to make a point, and justifying yourself by it before God are two different things. I don't see Paul contradicting himself here at all. He says, "as also saith the law". He doesn't say live by the law, or justify yourself by it. He's using it here as a frame of reference. IMHO.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by adjensen

 

But that wasn't what you were asked to produce, examples of Paul contradicting Christ, and I demonstrated that it isn't evidence of Paul contradicting himself, since:

I did produce examples of Paul contradicting Jesus.
To which you responded " that would be an example of Paul contradicting himself, not Christ"

Like I said earlier, you look at clear evidence of Pauls contradictions and say "what contradictions?"

How do your statements in these two posts, which were the ones that I replied to with the text "that would be an example of Paul contradicting himself, not Christ", have to do with contradictions between Paul and Jesus?

Post one: www.abovetopsecret.com...
Post two: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I will ask you again....."Why is Paul referring to the law (1 Corinthians 14:34) when he declares that all who rely on observing the law are under a curse (Galaians 3:10 )?"

I already gave you a reasonable alternative explanations (two of them, in fact) -- did you not read them?

reply to post by Klassified

He's using it here as a frame of reference. IMHO.

"Frame of reference" to what exactly.

He cant even make up his mind on the stuff he talks about.
Anybody who says "the law is a curse" one day.....and "do as the law says" on a different day.... is either a)bonkers b)contradicting himself.

Clearly you, like most other christians.... have elevated Paul to a state where his words over-ride the words of Jesus.

Jesus warned against people who would come in his name. Paul was one of them. And you follow him.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Sorry bro, I'm an atheist/agnostic. I have no horse in this race. But I spent decades of my life as a Christian. I get involved in these debates to help people understand the Christian perspective better, and because too many people read a few chapters of the bible, do a few google searches, and think they understand the bible and Christianity. I also just enjoy it.

reply to post by Klassified

I'm an atheist/agnostic. I have no horse in this race. But I spent decades of my life as a Christian.

Well, I can say I've been through a "christian" phase as well.
Except, I'm still a theist. So what of it?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Clearly you, like most other christians.... have elevated Paul to a state where his words over-ride the words of Jesus.
...And you follow him.

So what of it?

I was addressing what you said above. But getting beyond that. I find it interesting that Peter seemed to think Paul was genuine, and in saying so, also addressed the same issues that come up today concerning Paul.

2Peter 3:15-17

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

So I guess Peter was deceived as well. So you can throw out his epistles too.

reply to post by Klassified


Didn't Jesus call Peter "satan" in one passage?